How Disney Princesses Exemplify the Consistent Life Ethic
by Kae-Leah Williamson
(reprinted from her personal Facebook note)
My best friend Lisa Dawn Tynes and I both adore princesses and mermaids, even though we’re both over 30. She has a fantastic blog appropriately called The Princess Blog that discusses her opinions on all sorts of fairy tale-related media. Some of the most thought-provoking posts she’s made were about what fairy tale and Disney princesses represent to her: ideals of love, hope, and compassion. To me, that sounds an awful lot like the Consistent Life Ethic.
Disney’s Pocahontas gets a lot of well-deserved criticism for the film’s many historical inaccuracies, but taken as a fictional character separate from the real-life historical figure she was inspired by, Pocahontas expresses many Consistent Life Ethicist ideals throughout her entire movie. “You think the only people who are people, are the people who look and think like you.” she so beautifully sings, calling John Smith out for his prejudices. The Consistent Life Ethic is about valuing all human beings equally, even if they look or think differently from us. Part of why we believe that abortion is morally wrong is because despite being smaller and less developed than we are, preborn fetuses are still human beings deserving of rights and protection. Pro-choicers often dehumanize preborn children as “parasites,” “clumps of cells,” etc., basically implying that because they are obviously not identical to infants, they are not human and thus not worthy of caring about. War and inhumane immigration policy are also often driven by dehumanizing and “othering” people. Pocahontas takes a strong stand by refusing to “take the path of hatred,”
In The Little Mermaid, Ariel’s father, King Triton, is extremely prejudiced against human beings, because he views them as a threat to merfolk for admittedly understandable reasons. Ariel is very upset by the way he calls them “barbarians, incapable of any feeling.” Ariel disagrees, and does value human life, rescuing Prince Eric from drowning, and refusing to see “how a world that makes such beautiful things could be bad.”
Throughout The Little Mermaid animated series from the early 1990s, which is currently available for streaming on Disney+, she is constantly taking the side of every outcast she comes across, valuing all life both under and above the sea consistently.
One reason why Enchanted is one of my top 3 favorite movies of all time is I believe the world would be a better place if we were all at least a little bit more like Giselle. Giselle is optimistic and trusting to a fault, seeing the good in everybody around her without exception. This contrasts her with her jaded, cynical love interest Robert. She is so sensitive that the very idea of a couple getting divorced causes her to burst into tears. I can only imagine her reaction when learning about abortion or nuclear war for the first time! Many people are so jaded by the many injustices of society that they’ve essentially become numb to them, so it’s a helpful thought experiment to sometimes try to look at issues through the eyes of a true innocent like Giselle.
Believing in the Consistent Life Ethic has only strengthened my admiration for the ideals these characters espouse. The real world is no fairy tale, but if we were more like Disney Princesses, we’d be much closer to living in a Consistent Life Ethic utopia.
===============================
For another take about Disney princesses on our blog, see:
Jasmine, Aladdin, and the Power of Nonviolence
For more of our blog’s commentary on Hollywood movies, see:
Hollywood Movie Insights (The Giver, The Whistleblower, and The Ides of March)
The Darkest Hour: “Glorifying” War?
Movies with Racism Themes: “Gosnell” and “The Hate U Give”
Justice Littered with Injustice: Viewing Just Mercy in a Charged Moment
A Consistent Day in the Neighborhood
The Message of “Never Rarely Sometimes Always”: Abortion Gets Sexual Predators Off the Hook
The 2020 Election: If You See Something, Say Something
The author prefers to be anonymous.
A reminder: The Consistent Life Network doesn’t necessarily endorse everything said in its blog, since we encourage individual writers to express a variety of views. This is especially so when analyzing elections.
If you see something, say something.
That’s the mantra for those who want to work for social and racial justice.
When I first started seeing “Black Lives Matter” on lawn signs, I thought it was nothing more than an exclusive slogan. Why not “All Lives Matter”?
I don’t recall ever discussing racism and prejudice with anyone of color. I figured if I just focused on becoming a better person, then I didn’t need to get involved with social or political movements again.
I had been there, done that in college, complete with name-calling and anger directed at the opposition.
Now, I’ve come to loathe politics because of the polarized nature of the two-party system. I’m disgusted with the antagonistic 30-second ads the two major parties generate for public consumption, the length of the campaigns, and the millions upon millions of dollars it takes to become president.
In the 2016 election, not much would change for me, regardless of who became president. Where I live, there was no way Donald Trump was going to win.
I didn’t vote. I was wrong. I could have at least voted local and left the box for president blank.
President Trump doesn’t seem mentally stable. I worry about him. He’s not fit to command military forces or lead a nation. If he were a family member, I’d have staged an intervention. His lies, incompetence, and vengeful tactics have driven people apart, divided a nation.
Then…George Floyd. Almost ten minutes of a police officer’s knee on a helpless person’s neck, as he says “Please, I can’t breathe.” I can understand the outrage and protests.
Silence, I realize, equals compliance. I’ve been part of the systemic racism problem. I started paying attention and educating myself: Watching Uncomfortable Conversations with a Black Man; discussing racism with my wife; reading White Fragility; joining the diversity, equity and inclusion group at work; and speaking out about injustices I was witnessing in my own spheres.
Black lives do matter. Las vidas negras importan.
I’ve been digging deeper, and I don’t like what I’m learning about my country. We still want to ignore problems that rage out of control, such as normalized violence that is too often out-of-sight and out-of-mind while politics-as-usual commands center stage.
I also understand why some voted for Mr. Trump, again.
The Democratic Party has shunned Democrats for Life of America, for example. Kamala Harris had tweeted that she intends to not only defend but expand access to abortion. Nowhere have I read about Joe Biden or Ms. Harris wanting to decrease the number of abortions. At least Bill Clinton favored this while defending a pro-choice stance. Ms. Harris has a 100% congressional record on voting pro-choice. I couldn’t find any evidence that she’s willing to compromise on this issue.
This resistance to compromise on such a divisive issue reminds me of the National Rifle Association (NRA), an organization that touts itself as “diligent protectors of the Second Amendment.” Also causing me to despair is the persistence of some Republicans to denounce pro-choice people as baby-killers and to condemn abortion providers to a special place in hell.
Despite the rhetoric and name-calling that gets us nowhere, changing your mind is possible. There are people who have changed their minds on abortion and reproductive rights over the years. Jesse Jackson once wrote a piece for the Right to Life News (January, 1977) arguing that the right to privacy does not outrank the right to life. He changed his opinion when he ran for president in 1984. Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump have changed their minds. Whatever their positions might be, people aren’t always set in the same positions forever. Sometimes they can change dramatically: Dr. Anthony Levatino, who performed more than 1,200 abortions of pre-birth humans, had a change of heart.
Abortionists perform a disproportionate number of abortions on black women. Blacks and Latinx people outnumber white people on Death Row. Are these not examples of deep-rooted racial problems?
Black lives do matter. However, not all black lives matter to Black Lives Matter, the political organization.
In his victory speech, President-elect Biden’s said he would represent Americans who voted for Mr. Trump, adding, “It’s time to put away the harsh rhetoric. To lower the temperature. To see each other again. To listen to each other again.”
As I look outside the political realm for inspiration and continue to do my own soul-searching, I will think kind thoughts of those who disagree with me and promote civility, kindness, and non-violence.
Can we put the labels and laws aside for a few minutes and find common ground? Are you open to discussing the consistent life ethic?
=================================
For more of our posts reflecting on elections, see:
Pro-life Voting Strategy: A Problem without an Answer
Elections 2020: Three Consistent-Life Approaches
How Consistent-life Advocacy Would Benefit from Ranked-Choice Voting
Also see the Elections page on our website, The Price of Roe.
A Global Effort to Protect Life: The UN Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons
by John Whitehead
Honduras became, at the end of October, the fiftieth nation to ratify the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The Treaty, which was finalized in the summer of 2017, has been signed by 84 nations. Now that 50 of those nations have ratified it, the treaty will officially enter into force as international law on January 22, 2021.
The Treaty obligates the nations that have ratified it “never under any circumstances” to “[d]evelop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.” Nations party to the Treaty are also obligated never to assist any other nation with such activities. Moreover, these nations commit, to the extent they are able, to provide appropriate assistance to those affected by nuclear weapons testing and to repair environmental damage from such testing. Last, but certainly not least, nations party to the Treaty commit to encouraging other nations to join it.
To date, the Treaty has not been signed or ratified by any of the nine nuclear-armed nations in the world: Russia, the United States, China, France, Britain, Pakistan, India, Israel, and North Korea. While those nations most capable of curbing the nuclear threat may not yet be subject to the Treaty’s obligations, however, the Treaty can still make a significant and positive contribution to world peace.
The Treaty and Future Peace Activism
As advocates for the Treaty, such as Ray Acheson of Reaching Critical Will, have argued, an international treaty banning nuclear weapons creates a stigma against such weapons. Nations that fail to join the treaty have a similar questionable status to those that refuse to join treaties prohibiting landmines or chemical and biological weapons. As more nations join the treaty (even if those nations don’t possess nuclear weapons), the strength of global opinion that holds nuclear weapons to be morally suspect will grow. Further, the Treaty serves as an inspiration for further action by peace activists.
Peace activists should continue to put pressure on financial institutions or other groups that invest in companies that manufacture nuclear weapons or their components to divest their money from those companies. The existence of an international treaty prohibiting such weapons can give renewed power and urgency to such divestment efforts. Activists also can advocate for their own nations to join the Treaty or to take similar steps reduce the nuclear danger.
While nations that already possess nuclear weapons are unlikely to join the Treaty anytime soon, activists can pursue other initiatives targeted at such nations. The Back from the Brink campaign aims at nuclear abolition but also works for intermediate steps such as taking nuclear weapons off high alert and canceling American plans to spend huge sums on new nuclear weapons. Activists can mobilize around these or similar initiatives. Even without full nuclear abolition, the nuclear danger can still be reduced.
Nuclear Powers vs. the World?
As peace activists continue their work against the nuclear threat, one particular theme might be worth emphasizing. The Treaty’s biggest apparent limitation—the absence of any nations that possess nuclear weapons—is also an opportunity for activists to teach an important lesson. An anti-nuclear weapons treaty ratified only by non-nuclear nations makes a powerful statement: nuclear weapons’ threat reaches far beyond those nations that possess them.
one of the quarterly anti-nuclear vigils we do with a coalition of groups
The nuclear threat has often been characterized as being primarily between hostile nations that both possess nuclear weapons. We might think of the danger mainly as a matter of one nuclear-armed nation attacking another, which then retaliates in kind. Most of the imagined victims of nuclear weapons are the people in these warring nuclear nations.
People living in nations that go to war with nuclear weapons would indisputably be victims of such weapons. They would not be the only ones, however. Scientists studying the environmental effects of nuclear weapons have projected the catastrophic effects such weapons’ use will likely have on the earth’s climate. The soot thrown into the atmosphere by a nuclear exchange would cool the earth, causing crops to fail and probably leading to world famine.
Such an environmental cataclysm would be the probable result not only of a full-blown nuclear war between major nuclear nations such as Russia and the United States but even of a much smaller nuclear exchange. One model projects that if India and Pakistan used even 50 low-yield nuclear weapons against each other, global cooling and starvation would likely follow. Scientist Jonas Jägermeyr, an author of the India-Pakistan study, comments, “Even this regional, limited war would have devastating indirect implications worldwide . . . It would exceed the largest famine in documented history.”
These environmental dangers mean that almost any use of nuclear weapons by a nation with even a very small number of such weapons poses a colossal threat to the world. Much of humanity, not just the two nations fighting with nuclear weapons, would suffer the lethal consequences of using these nuclear weapons. Thus, people from every nation on earth can plausibly claim that the possession of nuclear weapons by any nation concerns them. The Treaty’s preamble recognizes this global concern by noting that “these risks [from nuclear weapons] concern the security of all humanity” and “all States share the responsibility to prevent any use of nuclear weapons.”
In this context, the Treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons is not only a condemnation of nuclear weapons’ threat but also an expression of defiance against a tiny number of nuclear-armed nations who are endangering the majority of the world’s people. As Acheson puts it,
“the majority of countries decided to take matters into their own hands. Recognizing the catastrophic humanitarian and environmental consequences that nuclear weapon production, testing, and use cause throughout the world . . . meant making international law without the consent of those who believed they held all the power.”
Emphasizing the environmental dangers of nuclear weapons, as well as the global power imbalance involved in the nuclear threat, allows peace activists to connect their work both to concerns about climate change and to opposition to imperialism. Moreover, opposition to imperialism need not and should not focus exclusively on the United States: to repeat, virtually all nations possessing nuclear-weapons pose a serious threat to humanity.
Moving Forward
The UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons doesn’t end the nuclear threat by any means, but it does provide a new opportunity for peace activists to renew their efforts. Setsuko Thurlow, a survivor of the Hiroshima bombing, offered some comments after Honduras ratified the Treaty. Her comments should guide us as we move forward:
“While this is a time to celebrate, it is not a time for us to relax. The world is ever more dangerous . . .
“The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons has opened a new door, wide. Passing through it we begin a new chapter in our struggle — with a mighty embrace of gratitude from those we have lost, and a heartfelt welcome from those who are yet to come. The beginning of the end of nuclear weapons has arrived! Let us step through the doorway now!”
=================================
For more of our posts on nuclear weapons, see:
Nukes and the Pro-Life Christian: A Conservative Takes a Second Look at the Morality of Nuclear Weapons
Rejecting Mass Murder: Looking Back on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
The Reynolds Family, the Nuclear Age and a Brave Wooden Boat
Nuclear Disarmament as a Social Justice Issue
“An Inferno That Even the Mind of Dante Could Not Envision”: Martin Luther King on Nuclear Weapons
“Everybody Else in the World Was Dead”: Hiroshima’s Legacy
The Danger That Faces Us All: Hiroshima and Nagasaki after 75 Years
Catastrophe by Mistake: The Button and the Danger of Accidental Nuclear War
Summary: Peace & Life Referendums
compiled by Rachel MacNair
For details on the referendums and explanations of why consistent-lifers have an interest in them, see:
Peace and Life Referendums
.
Good News
No Abortion “Right” in State Constitution
The Louisiana “Love Life Amendment” passed with flying colors – 63% of the vote. Formally, it’s the “No Right to Abortion in Constitution Amendment.” Our Louisiana page has several short videos explaining the value of a “yes” vote from a consistent-life point of view.
West Virginia, Alabama and Tennessee have similar language in their state constitutions.
One presidential candidate said in a debate that “Roe v. Wade is on the ballot,” oblivious to the point that the court decision has never actually been on the ballot. In this case, it was on the ballot for a state, and Roe failed dramatically.
Ending Slavery for Good
Both Nebraska and Utah had measures to remove the exception for those convicted of a crime from their state constitutions’ prohibition on slavery. This passed by 68% in Nebraska and 80% in Utah.
Paid Family and Medical Leave
Colorado passed this with 57% of the vote; we explain on the Colorado page why this is life-affirming and helps prevent abortions, complete with a speech Henry Hyde (of the Hyde Amendment) gave.
Minimum Wage
Florida needed 60% of the vote to pass this, and it got 61%.
Medicaid Expansion
Missouri and Oklahoma both passed this in their states earlier this year.
Roots of Racism: Removing the Symbols
There were three measures that didn’t deal with memorial statues that all passed:
Alabama voted (66%) to clean up its 1901 state constitution, which includes racial segregation and bans on interracial marriage, among other problems. Legal rulings have already made these outdated, which is why their removal is symbolic, but symbols influence thinking and thinking influences violence.
Mississippi liked the new design of its state flag (pictured below), approving it by 71%. This replaces the one that had the Confederate symbol in it.
Rhode Island decided, by 53%, to remove “and Providence Plantations” from its formal name.
Bad News
Late-Term Abortions
Colorado had a chance to ban this especially grisly practice, one that tends to target people with disabilities especially. Unfortunately, the “no” vote was about 59%. It will be some time before pro-life understandings are widespread in Colorado.
Stem Cell Research
Not all people are familiar with the human embryo-destroying aspects of some parts of stem cell research as practiced in California, so not everyone would know this wasn’t simply voting for medical research. Californians voted by 51% to allow for borrowing for more research.
Roots of Racism and War Memorials: Removing the Symbols
These were all county votes: Jackson County, Missouri keeps its statutes of its namesake Andrew Jackson, and Franklin County and Lunenburg County in Virginia keep their Confederate statues.
Fratelli Tutti – Consistent-Life Excerpts
Since Catholics in the United States have been observing October as Respect Life Month, we share excerpts from Pope Francis’ recent encyclical letter Fratelli Tutti (a print version is available), touching on each of the threats to life mentioned in Consistent Life’s mission statement.
Compiled by Julia Smucker
18. Some parts of our human family, it appears, can be readily sacrificed for the sake of others considered worthy of a carefree existence. Ultimately, “persons are no longer seen as a paramount value to be cared for and respected, especially when they are poor and disabled, ‘not yet useful’ – like the unborn, or ‘no longer needed’ – like the elderly . . .
20. This way of discarding others can take a variety of forms, such as an obsession with reducing labor costs with no concern for its grave consequences, since the unemployment that it directly generates leads to the expansion of poverty. In addition, a readiness to discard others finds expression in vicious attitudes that we thought long past, such as racism, which retreats underground only to keep reemerging. Instances of racism continue to shame us, for they show that our supposed social progress is not as real or definitive as we think.
107. Every human being has the right to live with dignity and to develop integrally; this fundamental right cannot be denied by any country. People have this right even if they are unproductive, or were born with or developed limitations. This does not detract from their great dignity as human persons, a dignity based not on circumstances but on the intrinsic worth of their being. Unless this basic principle is upheld, there will be no future either for fraternity or for the survival of humanity.
Angels Unawares, commemorating migrants, inaugurated in St. Peter’s Square
255. There are two extreme situations that may come to be seen as solutions in especially dramatic circumstances, without realizing that they are false answers that do not resolve the problems they are meant to solve and ultimately do no more than introduce new elements of destruction in the fabric of national and global society. These are war and the death penalty.
261. Every war leaves our world worse than it was before. War is a failure of politics and of humanity, a shameful capitulation, a stinging defeat before the forces of evil. Let us not remain mired in theoretical discussions, but touch the wounded flesh of the victims. Let us look once more at all those civilians whose killing was considered “collateral damage”. Let us ask the victims themselves. Let us think of the refugees and displaced, those who suffered the effects of atomic radiation or chemical attacks, the mothers who lost their children, and the boys and girls maimed or deprived of their childhood. Let us hear the true stories of these victims of violence, look at reality through their eyes, and listen with an open heart to the stories they tell. In this way, we will be able to grasp the abyss of evil at the heart of war. Nor will it trouble us to be deemed naïve for choosing peace.
263. There is yet another way to eliminate others, one aimed not at countries but at individuals. It is the death penalty. Saint John Paul II stated clearly and firmly that the death penalty is inadequate from a moral standpoint and no longer necessary from that of penal justice. There can be no stepping back from this position. Today we state clearly that “the death penalty is inadmissible” and the Church is firmly committed to calling for its abolition worldwide.
269. Let us keep in mind that “not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this”. The firm rejection of the death penalty shows to what extent it is possible to recognize the inalienable dignity of every human being and to accept that he or she has a place in this universe. If I do not deny that dignity to the worst of criminals, I will not deny it to anyone. I will give everyone the possibility of sharing this planet with me, despite all our differences.
270. I ask Christians who remain hesitant on this point, and those tempted to yield to violence in any form, to keep in mind the words of the book of Isaiah: “They shall beat their swords into plowshares” (2:4). For us, this prophecy took flesh in Christ Jesus who, seeing a disciple tempted to violence, said firmly: “Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Mt26:52). These words echoed the ancient warning: “I will require a reckoning for human life. Whoever sheds the blood of a man, by man shall his blood be shed” (Gen9:5-6). Jesus’ reaction, which sprang from his heart, bridges the gap of the centuries and reaches the present as an enduring appeal.
===================
For more of our blog posts with religious aspects, see:
The Consistent Life Consensus in Ancient Christianity
Abortion and War are the Karma for Killing Animals
Breaking Stereotypes in Fearful Times (Islam)
Why the Interfaith Approach is Important
Catastrophe by Mistake: The Button and the Danger of Accidental Nuclear War
by John Whitehead
The most likely way for the United States to end up in a nuclear war today is not because of an aggressive nuclear attack by Russia or North Korea or some other nation. Nor is it likely to be because the United States launches such an aggressive attack on another nuclear-armed nation. The most likely scenario for nuclear war in 2020 is as the result of a complete accident.
Faulty early warning data or some other technological failing will lead a US president to believe the United States is under nuclear attack when it isn’t. The president will order the many nuclear weapons that are currently kept ready for use at a moment’s notice to be launched in retaliation. By the time the mistake is discovered, it will be too late. The other nuclear-armed nation, now under a genuine nuclear attack by the United States, will retaliate and mutual destruction is assured.
Preventing such a catastrophic mistake is the major concern of The Button: The New Nuclear Arms Race and Presidential Power from Truman to Trump, by William J. Perry and Tom Z. Collina. Perry served as secretary of defense under Bill Clinton and had been part of the US national security establishment for decades before that. Collina is the policy director of the Ploughshares Fund and has long been involved in arms control advocacy. Their book is a powerful warning about the nuclear danger as well as a guide to reducing that danger.
Perry and Collina’s most urgent concern is reforming US policies to avoid the kind of nuclear-war-by-false-alarm scenario I described above (and which they describe in far more detail in the book’s introduction). Beyond this top priority, however, they discuss other steps to lessen the nuclear threat, including the need to improve American relations with Russia and pursue mutual nuclear weapons reductions. While they don’t discuss it in depth, Perry and Collina seem to reach toward nuclear abolition as their ultimate goal.
An Explosive Combination
Several different conditions combine to make accidental nuclear war such a plausible risk. The United States has hundreds of land-based nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) that would likely be destroyed if Russia attacked the United States first with nuclear weapons. Unlike nuclear weapons on submarines or bomber planes, land-based missiles cannot be moved and are fixed targets for an adversary. If the United States were to use its nuclear ICBMs in response to a nuclear attack, it would have to use them in the short window of time between when an incoming nuclear attack is reported and when the attacking missiles land.
Moreover, the inherent practical difficulties of maintaining functional military command and control after the country has been devastated in a nuclear attack also creates major pressure to use nuclear weapons at the first sign of an attack, while command and control is still intact. This approach to using nuclear weapons is known as “launch on warning.”
The authority to order such a launch-on-warning attack lies with the president alone. While presidential authority over nuclear weapons was originally established to ensure civilian control over these weapons, its practical legacy is that a single human being has sole authority to order the most destructive act in human history. The president doesn’t have to consult with Congress, despite Congress having the constitutional authority to declare war. He doesn’t have to consult the cabinet or his closest advisors. No one else can legally check or obstruct his decision. Thus, if an incoming nuclear attack is reported to the president, he can decide on his own to order a launch-on-warning response—and he will have only minutes to make such a decision.
Along with the launch-on-warning option and sole presidential authority, the final condition creating our current perilous situation is fallibility. The fallibility of technological systems produces false alarms—The Button discusses some historical examples of such frightening errors—and also makes these systems vulnerable to hacking or cyberattacks. The fallibility of human beings produces bad decisions. Moreover, the likelihood of bad decisions increases dramatically if the president were drunk, on drugs, or otherwise impaired—and the book provides historical examples of these situations, as well. When fallibility is combined with launch on warning and extraordinary presidential power, we have the real possibility of accidental nuclear war.
Defusing the Situation
Perry and Collina recommend specific policies to avoid catastrophe. US policy should prohibit launch-on-warning. Land-based ICBMs as a category of nuclear weapon should eventually be retired. The authors argue that nuclear weapons on submarines and bomber planes, which being mobile can survive an adversary’s attack and so are less subject to launch-on-warning pressure, provide a sufficient nuclear deterrent. They also recommend limiting sole presidential authority to order the use of nuclear weapons.
Along with steps to reduce the risk of accidental nuclear war, Perry and Collina recommend policies to slow down the arms race and ease international tensions. The US plan to replace current nuclear forces, which they estimate will cost about $2 trillion over the next 30 years, should be significantly scaled back. Anti-missile defense systems, which are ineffective and sour US-Russian relations (the Russians perceive such defenses as preparations for a US attack on them), should be limited. The United States should work with Russia to radically reduce their nuclear arsenals and should seek a more peaceful relationship with Iran and North Korea.
Weaknesses and Strengths
To pacifists or others with a commitment to nonviolence, or even just people who believe war should be kept within strict limits, The Button leaves much to be desired. As their proposals suggest, Perry and Collina are willing to retain a considerable number of nuclear weapons for a long time (they refer to keeping nuclear-armed submarines for “decades to come”). Although they recommend reduced spending on nuclear weapons, they still seem to envision spending hundreds of billions of dollars on such weapons. Moreover, while they correctly wish to avoid nuclear war, they never question the morality of even threatening the indiscriminate killing of millions while maintaining the weapons to carry out this threat.
Nevertheless, even if The Button falls short of what many peace activists would hope for, Perry and Collina’s recommended policies would definitely mark a step in the right direction. They would decrease the danger from nuclear weapons and could serve as a stepping stone to abolition or something like it. Indeed, their proposals bear a strong resemblance to those of the abolition-aimed Back from the Brink initiative, of which the Consistent Life Network is an endorser.
At times, the authors gesture toward nuclear abolition. They write sympathetically of the 2017 UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) that worked for the treaty. (They interviewed Beatrice Fihn, ICAN’s executive director, who is among The Button’s endorsers.) Perry and Collina even comment, “the best way to prevent the use of the bomb is to eliminate it from the face of the earth.” That they don’t elaborate on how to reach this goal is unfortunate.
While not a blueprint for nuclear abolition, The Button provides sound recommendations for countering the nuclear danger, as well as much other valuable information. The book is a useful primer for those wishing to learn about the anti-nuclear cause, as it provides historical overviews and analyses of the arms race and arms control diplomacy.
The authors also have insights applicable to other causes. They have valuable observations on the role government bureaucracies and other vested interests play in perpetuating specific military technologies or otherwise shaping policy.
They also point out that activists need to be consistently engaged. Even if a US president committed to ending the nuclear danger were elected, she or he might not follow through on that commitment without constant pressure from activists outside the government. Whatever the precise cause, protecting human life from violence cannot be left just to politicians; the work requires engagement and persistence across society.
==================================
For more of our posts on nuclear weapons, see:
Nukes and the Pro-Life Christian: A Conservative Takes a Second Look at the Morality of Nuclear Weapons
The Reynolds Family, the Nuclear Age and a Brave Wooden Boat
“An Inferno That Even the Mind of Dante Could Not Envision”: Martin Luther King on Nuclear Weapons
Nuclear Disarmament as a Social Justice Issue
To Save Humanity: What I Learned at the “Two Minutes to Midnight” Conference
“Everybody Else in the World Was Dead”: Hiroshima’s Legacy
The Danger That Faces Us All: Hiroshima and Nagasaki after 75 Years
Death Penalty and other Killing: The Destructive Effect on Us
by Fr. Jim Hewes
I have opposed the death penalty for years. My reasoning stems from a larger perspective than just the death penalty. It focuses not on the circumstances surrounding the crime or the killer, but the effect of our actions on those that approve of or carry out an execution.
Fr. Jim Hewes
Anguish
In the biblical book of Genesis after Cain had killed Abel he says to the Lord, “My punishment is too great to bear.” (Genesis 4:13) God had not done anything to Cain yet, so why does he say this? I never understood this until I read a book by S.L.A. Marshall, Men against Fire. Marshall was a colonel in the U.S. army during World War II. He wrote about men that he interviewed in over 400 infantry companies who were in direct combat in Europe and the Central Pacific during World War II. He was surprised to find that 80% to 85% of the soldiers they interviewed either didn’t fire their weapons or fired intentionally over the head of the enemy.
Another team interviewed soldiers in combat during the Vietnam War. They found a dramatic change-90-95% of those soldiers interviewed fired to kill the enemy (from “On Killing” by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman p. 35).
What is the result of this change? The VA estimated there were tens of thousands of Vietnam Veterans who were homeless at one time, and thousands of Vietnam Vets have been in our nation’s prisons and jails since the war ended. Hundreds of thousands of Vietnam Veterans have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. Thousands of Vietnam veterans have committed suicide.
These studies have been validated for me in personal conversations I’ve had with Vietnam Veterans. In particular, one veteran told me that he had killed quite a few people in Vietnam, but what haunted him the most was that he had killed a woman there. Because of this, he had been unable to find any peace. Then he paused and told me that he was terminal with cancer and he didn’t have long to live. He then asked me: “What do I do?”
Another Vietnam veteran who was in a parish I was assigned to as a young priest became a friend. He wouldn’t talk about his experience of the war. Yet he did share with me that there was a terrible strain in his life from the war and that he had been seeing a psychiatrist for years. He died a few years ago. The death certificate would have listed the cause as a heart attack, but I know it was from a heart that was broken by his involvement in the war.
All the articles coming out in the last few years in terms of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan echo this. In fact, a report came out which stated: “Those who acknowledged killing someone in combat were more likely to have PTSD symptoms, anger, relationship problems.” Reports have come out about the rise of divorce, domestic abuse, and abuse of alcohol and prescription drugs by returning veterans. Adm. Michael Mullen, formerly a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at one time that the military faces a suicide “crisis.” It has been reported many times that the mental health problems from those returning from our current wars threaten to overwhelm the system of care for them.
This was also reflected in a woman in one of my parishes who asked me to see her father who was Christian. He was in his 80’s and had been depressed for quite awhile. He came to talk to me and told me the source of his depression for all these years began when he was a young soldier in WWII. His outfit had captured German soldiers and then they would all of a sudden disappear. He knew they had been executed, and he said or did nothing. In fact, all he did was carry the ammunition, but he felt he had contributed to the loss of lives. He could never reconcile what he was a part of during the war, and this had stayed with him all these years since then. He had not really talked about this, which I find true with many veterans that I have met, and it doesn’t matter which war they were in.
I have witnessed this same reality in another area with men and many women who have had abortions, who I have seen over the last 18 years in coordinating Project Rachel (an incredible post abortion healing program). In this light, I remember a woman who went through Project Rachel once remarked, “none of us want to be known for the worse moment of our life.” When we continue to kill for whatever reason like Cain, we will be left with the same wound in the depth of our soul. Acts of killing, whether done through those involved in a war or other means, like the death penalty, although having different reasons for justification, ultimately fuel one’s own destructiveness.
I believe the real reason for this is that there is something intrinsic within us as human beings that resists killing other people. No matter what justification we use, when we violate this basic part of our humanity, we not only take a life, we also destroy ourselves in the process.
Fueling Our Own Destructiveness
When I heard Sister Helen Prejean (author of “Dead Man Walking”) speak she stated that the men she worked with on death row did such horrible crimes that she could see why some people felt they didn’t deserve to live, but if we execute them, she said that it will have a destructive effect on us and give the offender another victim — whether it is an individual on a jury, a warden who pulls the switch, a politician who votes for the death penalty or society as a whole.
This insight is reflected by Jim Willett (in a New York Times article, October 9, 2000) who had presided over 75 executions states: “Sometimes I wonder whether people really understand what goes on down here and the effect it has on us. Killing people, even people you know are heinous criminals, is a gruesome business and it takes a harsh toll
I met Marietta Jaeger Lane whose seven-year-old daughter Susie was kidnapped and eventually brutally murdered. At first, she said that she wanted to kill the murderer with her bare hands. In time she learned to forgive the person who did this horrendous act, but her husband could not let go of the rage and desire for revenge. Although a young man in good health, he died prematurely. Marietta said that she was convinced his inability to forgive took his life.
I was able to talk one time with Bud Welch, whose daughter Julie Marie was one of the ones killed in the Oklahoma City bombings. He said his anger made him become crazy. It wasn’t until he let go of this rage (including a meeting with Timothy McVeigh’s father which helped) that he finally found peace.
There is in our world a raging furnace of evil, violence, and death. Acts of killing, whether done by an individual in a murder, the state through an execution, by an abortionist in a clinic, or our nation in Iraq and Afghanistan, continue to fuel this raging inferno of our own destruction.
Conclusion
I in no way want to diminish the evil and harm caused by people that commit terrible crimes; nor the loss and heartache experienced by families whose loved one has been affected by a horrible act of violence, which has taken the gift of life, in the death of someone precious to them. But the true meaning of justice is not about death but about bringing life into our world.
We cannot end the violence around us by committing more violence, such as executions. That’s why if people are oppressed in some way, if they don’t go through a process of healing and forgiveness, when they come to power, they’ll become the new oppressors. As Richard Rohr says, “Pain that is not transformed is transmitted.” The cycle of violence continues.
Likewise, when a person dehumanizes anyone, even someone on death row, they end up dehumanizing themselves as well. They become the new oppressors. If we continue to kill for whatever reason, we like Cain will be left with the same anguish to endure for the rest of our lives.
Father Hewes helped found the Diocese of Rochester Human Life Commission in 1978, with our charter clearly being a consistent life ethic, five years before Cardinal Bernardin gave his famous talk at Fordham on the CLE.
========================
For more of our posts on psychological impact of killing, see:
Healing for the Perpetrators: The Psychological Damage from Different Types of Killing / Sarah Terzo
Abortion Doctor Says: We are the Executioners / Sarah Terzo
“But I was Empty”: The Story of a Doctor Who Left Planned Parenthood / Sarah Terzo
For more posts on the death penalty, see:
Racism and the Death Penalty / David Cruz-Uribe
Is the Death Penalty Unethical? / Hannah Cox
Why Conservatives Should Oppose the Death Penalty / Destiny Herndon-de la Rosa
Dialog on Life Issues: Avoiding Some Obstacles to Communication
by John Whitehead
An essential part of consistent life ethic advocacy is learning how to talk about the ethic or specific life issues to people with differing views. In a recent post for us, Josh Brahm of the Equal Rights Institute (ERI) offered for constructive dialog. I offer further thoughts, partly inspired by ERI’s work on the topic.
The Cooperative Ideal and Adversarial Reality
Dialog about life issues should ideally be cooperative, with people sharing and considering each other’s views, identifying common ground and differences, and listening to criticisms. While they probably won’t agree, they’ll at least reach a better understanding. Perhaps, over time and after enough good dialogs, people might reconsider.
This ideal is rarely realized. Most dialogs are not cooperative but adversarial. Each side behaves like a lawyer conducting an aggressive cross-examination of a witness. Each treats the other as someone whose views are suspect and deserve rigorously skeptical, if not hostile, scrutiny. Each side tries to trip up the other, to catch the other in a contradiction, inconsistency, or other fault.
How does this approach prevent people from honestly answering questions about their views?
No one wants to answer questions posed to trap them or make them look foolish. No one wants to be in the vulnerable position of the witness being cross-examined by the hostile lawyer. Therefore, people in an adversarial dialog will likely do two things.
- To not be trapped, they’ll avoid giving direct or clear answers when they don’t have some ready-made, “safe” reply.
- They’ll try going on the offensive, to reverse the lawyer-witness approach.
When this back-and-forth takes over a dialog, people will end up not only still disagreeing (which was probably inevitable) but not even understanding each other’s views. Why should they? The whole dialog was directed not to mutual understanding and an honest exploration of the issue, but to avoiding being trapped and humiliated.
Two types of questions can especially lead a dialog to become adversarial and unproductive.
Difficult Question #1: Hard Cases
Someone will frequently ask about “hard cases” that seemingly challenge a commitment to nonviolence.
- On abortion: “What if a woman becomes pregnant because of rape?” or “What if continuing a pregnancy would threaten a woman’s life?”
- On the death penalty: “What about a remorseless killer who killed people in prison?” or “What about when convicted murderers have escaped from prison?”
- On euthanasia: “What if a terminally ill person is in excruciating pain that medicine cannot relieve?”
- On war: “What if a ruthless tyrant is committing genocide?”
There’s an obvious objection to such questions (which I will get to), but they aren’t inherently unreasonable. Considering the full implications of a commitment to nonviolence and how to apply the consistent life ethic to extreme situations is worthwhile. Moreover, as Josh Brahm and Rachel Crawford of ERI explain in on questions about abortion in cases of rape, questions about hard cases help people in dialog fully understand what the other person believes.
When questions about hard cases come up, however, we might feel reluctant to answer them. Such questions often come across as a trap set by the questioner. If we respond by insisting on adherence to nonviolence, the other person will attack us as fanatical or uncaring. If we respond by making an exception or expressing uncertainty, that person will attack us as inconsistent or hypocritical.
Faced with an apparent trap, a consistent life ethic advocate might understandably choose not to answer the question. Instead, the advocate might raise that obvious objection and point out that such hard cases are rare, extreme situations. Most acts of violence we oppose don’t resemble these examples, and how we deal with unusual hard cases shouldn’t determine how we generally deal with violence.
This response is correct, but the person posing the hard-cases question will probably see it as an evasion. The questioner might come away from the dialog not knowing what the consistent life ethic advocate really thinks about hard cases, while dismissing the advocate for dodging difficult questions.
A response which might move the dialog closer to cooperation could be to say something like “That’s a good question, and I’ll do my best to answer it. Once I do, though, I’d like to ask you a question. Once we’ve both given our answers, let’s talk about them.” The advocate could then give an honest answer to the hard-case question.
After that, the advocate could ask the other person: “What about cases that aren’t as extreme?” What about a pregnancy that isn’t life threatening? A killer who has shown remorse? A terminally ill person who isn’t in unmanageable pain? Do you think abortion or execution or suicide is appropriate in those cases?
Such an approach addresses the hard cases question while encouraging both people to present their beliefs for scrutiny. It steps away from an adversarial relationship toward more of a mutual exchange of views.
Difficult Question #2: Alternatives
Someone might ask, “What’s the alternative?” If we don’t support violence, how do we address the problem or injustice that the violence (supposedly) corrects?
Again, this is a fair question. It’s even more reasonable than the hard-cases questions, since finding alternatives is relevant to all cases of violence, not just hard cases. Yet I think such a question can easily provoke the same kind of wariness and reluctance, for two reasons.
The obvious reason is that the question shifts scrutiny onto the consistent life ethic advocate. Given the variety and complexity of situations of violence, coming up with an adequate, practical nonviolent solution will often be challenging.
The subtler reason is that the advocate might see a request for alternatives as a way of setting unfavorable terms. When the question is “Does a practical alternative to this type of violence exist?” the implied follow-up question might be “If no practical alternative exists, then doesn’t that mean the violence is justified?” The consistent life ethic advocate would understandably see accepting such terms of discussion as conceding too much.
A preferred approach might be first to reject the violence as unacceptable and, with this rejection clearly established, only then consider alternatives.
To illustrate: When the subject of targeted killing by the U.S. government as a counter-terrorism policy comes up, I’ve encountered the “What’s the alternative?” question. How do we stop terrorism if we don’t kill alleged terrorists without trial?
My main reaction is to think “I don’t have to provide an alternative.” We should simply reject assassination as wrong and then, having ruled out such acts, consider what would be acceptable alternative counter-terrorism policies. The same could be said of torture. The notion that assassination or torture should be viewed as “open to consideration pending a practical alternative” strikes me as a very slanted starting point for discussion.
Still, the problem remains that not answering the question “What’s the alternative?” will come across as evasive and not promote constructive dialog. Not providing an alternative is especially unfortunate if the other person is sympathetic to the consistent life ethic advocate’s position but is held back from agreement by the sense that no nonviolent solution is available.
To avoid this problem, proposing a mutual exchange of views again might be helpful. Perhaps when someone asks about the alternative to some type of violence, we could answer as best we can and then pose a question of our own: “Maybe my alternative solution has problems, but since you asked about alternatives, let me ask: Do you think a practical alternative to [this type of violence] would be a good thing? Even if my solution isn’t the best, is it still worth looking for alternatives?”
If the other person agrees to this much, then the consistent life ethic advocate can point to a clear area of common ground. Both people agree the violence being discussed is undesirable and an alternative is worth finding. This might help restore a spirit of cooperation to the discussion.
Conclusion
Dialog with those we disagree with is always challenging, especially when difficult questions are involved. I’m not suggesting my proposed approaches are the best or only ways of handling these questions. I think, however, that consistent life ethic advocates should find honest ways of answering such questions while trying to move dialog from an adversarial to a cooperative stance. I encourage others to develop their own approaches so we can have good, constructive dialogs on life issues.
====================================
For more of our posts on dialog, see:
Tips on Dialogue / Rachel MacNair
Two Practical Dialogue Tips for Changing More Minds about Abortion / Josh Brahm
A Lawyer’s Turnaround on Baby Doe with Her Own Down Syndrome Baby
Sarah Terzo
by Sarah Terzo
Janine Steck Huffman has a child with Down syndrome. But years before she gave birth to her son Nash, she was partly responsible for the legal starvation death of Baby Doe, another child with Down syndrome.
Baby Doe was born in Bloomington, Indiana, in April 1982. Besides Down syndrome, he had esophageal atresia, which prevented him from eating. A simple operation would have enabled him to eat. Without it, he would starve to death.
When Baby Doe’s mother saw him for the first time, she reportedly said, “You look beautiful. You look different from my other two, but I love you anyway.”1
But that was before she learned Baby Doe had Down syndrome.
A doctor at the Bloomington Hospital, Walters Owens, encouraged the Does not to allow the surgery. He told them the child would have a poor quality of life and emphasized what a burden Baby Doe would be on them.
He would later tell reporter Jeff Lyon why he was so determined that Baby Doe should die. Owens’ nephew had a child who was disabled and, as the reporter put it, “malformed.” The child had needed surgery, which was given, and repeated treatment for pneumonia. Owens said:
But the child has never been normal. It learned to walk at the age of four, and it has never learned to talk. It is, at times, aggressive and destructive. My nephew and his wife are very strong people and have handled it. But they’ve had no more children. She has devoted her whole life to caring for this child.
Obviously, this has colored my thinking on the survival of such children. I believe there are things worse than having a child [like that] die. And one of them is that it might live.2
So, because he did not like one disabled child, and did not see the value in that child’s life, he was convinced all disabled babies should die. He spoke at length to the Does and managed to convince them, despite other doctors who wanted to treat the baby.
With Owens looking on, the Does told their team of doctors that they wanted their son to die. According to Lyon:
While his colleagues looked dumbfounded, Owens leaped up to congratulate the father. “You’ve made a wise and courageous choice. Here’s how I look at it. If you let the baby die, you’re going to grieve a little while. But if you go ahead with the surgery, you’re going to grieve for the rest of your lives.”3
Officials at the hospital took Baby Doe’s parents to court. And here is where Janine Huffman comes in. At the time, she was a clerk for Judge John G. Baker. The research she did for him led to his decision to deny Baby Doe the operation. Years later, she would reflect:
When assumptions based on ignorance or outdated information abound, they perpetuate a society that will not embrace or even accept differences.
I understand these misconceptions all too well because I was once one of “them” . . . one of those people with the preconceived notion that a diagnosis of Down syndrome brought nothing but pain to the families involved; that children with the syndrome have no purpose in life and grow up to be adults with no joy or friends . . .
I was asked to research the right to die issue, and that research resulted in legal conclusions that supported the parents, not with those that wanted to adopt Baby Doe. This information made me think that letting this baby go since he will be a “blob,” might be the right thing to do.4
In court, Baby Doe’s parents made the argument that “[Children with Down syndrome] never had a minimally acceptable quality of life.”5
The hospital appealed the ruling.
There was a public outcry. No fewer than 10 couples offered to adopt Baby Doe. One of them was Mike Lorentay, who worked with developmentally disabled children. He said:
I believe that every person, no matter who or what their ages, has a right to live. If need be, I’ll pay for the operation. I’m not well-off, but I’d pay for it and bring the baby back to Canada.6
Nurses in Bloomington Hospital revolted and refused to stand by and let the child starve. Baby Doe had to be transferred to another wing of the hospital, and his parents had to hire private nurses. The case was appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court. Sadly, the Justices ruled against saving Baby Doe. Judge C. Thomas Spencer stated in the ruling:
The Court finds that the state has failed to show that the child’s physical or mental condition is seriously impaired or seriously endangered as a result of the inability, refusal or neglect of his parents to supply the child with necessary food and medical care.7
By now, Baby Doe was dying and suffering greatly. Lyon wrote:
Even as Spencer sat reading his decision at 8 PM on Tuesday night, the infant lay in his incubator, dying. His bodyweight had dropped from lack of nourishment. He was crying from hunger, and his lips were parched from dehydration. His ribs were sticking out, the result of respiratory strain. That afternoon, when the stomach acid started corroding his lungs, he had begun to spit blood.
The nurses did what they could. They turned him over, gave him back rubs, and put glycerin-soaked swabs into his mouth to ease the dryness. They also diligently suctioned the blood from his throat.9
A few days later:
He had begun to hemorrhage freely, the blood oozing from his nose and mouth. Three times Thursday afternoon and evening he had stopped breathing, only to fight his way back.10
The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. But Baby Doe ran out of time. After six agonizing days, Baby Doe died.
The nurses who cared for Baby Doe were traumatized by the experience. One nurse, Teleatha McIntosh, said:
I feel that a terrible injustice was done. I couldn’t sleep for a long time afterward. Every time I closed my eyes, I’d see that baby lying there bleeding and fighting for breath . . . . Without a doubt, it was the most inhumane thing I’ve ever been involved in. I had all this guilt, just standing by giving him injections and doing nothing for him.11
Nurse Bonnie Stuart said:
It still seems like a nightmare to me. I still can’t believe it happened in today’s society. I said, “This is wrong,” 50 times a night as I was taking care of him. He wasn’t limp like they said. When I’d give him a shot of Demerol, he’d flinch. He’d open his eyes when I stroked his head. He looked like a perfectly normal little boy.12
Left: Huffman family. Right: Nash Huffman. From Janine Huffman’s blog.
As for Huffman, who contributed to Baby Doe’s death, she gave birth to a child with Down syndrome. Because she did not know the diagnosis when her son Nash was in the womb, she never had a chance to abort him. She found out after he was born. She says that when she found out:
I was in shock. Images ran through my mind of the baby I thought we would have – the baby we wanted to have – and tears started flowing.
I wish I had known then what really lay in store for us. Nash is our source of amazement every day. He is one smart little boy and could recite his ABCs and basic colors, sight-read more than 10 words, and use at least 130 signs of American Sign Language before the age of three. More importantly, he has taught me a lesson I still work through every day – that the value of a life, of a human life, of a child, is measured not by how much he or she can accomplish, but how much he or she can teach others about what really matters. Like how to accept people with all kinds of different “abilities.” Our life is better than good . . .
We are advocates now for Nash and for others with Down syndrome. We also know that Nash will be his own advocate, and that he will make a difference in the world.13
Tragically, Baby Doe never had a chance to advocate for himself, although thousands tried to advocate for him. His death will be remembered as a grave injustice.
Footnotes
- Jeff Lyon “The Death of Baby Doe,” Chicago Tribune, February 10, 1985, p. 12
- Ibid., 13
- Ibid.
- Janine Steck Huffman “It’s Better Than Good” in Kathryn Lynard Soper Gifts: Mothers Reflect on How Children with Down Syndrome Enrich Their Lives (Bethesda, Maryland: Woodbine House, 2007) 39 – 40
- Quoted in Melinda Tankard Reist Defiant Birth: Women Who Resist Medical Eugenics (North Melbourne, Australia: Spinifex, 2006) 50
- “Race on to Keep Handicapped Baby Alive” Detroit Free Press April 16, 1982
- Jeff Lyon, 17
- Ibid., 17
- Ibid., 17
- Ibid., 23, 16
- Ibid., 23
- Janine Steck Huffman “It’s Better Than Good” in Kathryn Lynard, p. 42-43
- Janine Hoffman’s blog, Mauzy’s Musings, http://mauzysmusings.blogspot.com/
====================================
Editor’s Note: Indiana’s Baby Doe was the case that set Nat Hentoff on the course to be pro-life.
For our posts on a similar topic, see:
How Euthanasia and Poverty Threaten the Disabled / Sarah Terzo
What’s Cruel for the Incarcerated is Cruel for the Terminally Ill / Jacqueline H. Abernathy
Figuring out Euthanasia: What Does it Really Mean? / Rachel MacNair
Is the Death Penalty Unethical?
by Hannah Cox
Hannah Cox
Is the death penalty unethical? For many years, this was where the debate around capital punishment began (and often ended).
While it’s an important question, especially for those concerned with human ethics or coming from a religious background, it is not necessarily the proper place to start the discussion. This is a theoretical question, and when we’re discussing matters of a public policy, we have to examine the practical application of that policy. This is the real world, not a classroom.
In between the black and white extremes of ethics lies the history and practices of the death penalty, and it is here that we should center our debate.
Capital punishment has (almost) always existed in our country, and we have continued to carry it out even as the rest of the western world has recognized its flaws and moved on to more effective, humane, and affordable solutions to violence.
For many years, the death penalty was carried out quite publicly, with executions performed in public squares, often with great fanfare. The grotesque nature of watching the state murder people in the streets led to the first abolition movement in the U.S. in the mid-19th century. States began to build penitentiaries, move executions inside, and change their laws to reduce the number of capital crimes on their books.
For the next century, the U.S. continued to carry out executions and stand by another type of death penalty – lynchings – which were carried out across the nation with the complicity of the legal system. From 1882 to 1968, 4,743 lynchings occurred (that we know of), the overwhelming majority of which were against Black people.
In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court briefly overturned the death penalty, finding that it was overrun with racial bias and arbitrariness in sentencing. It’s interesting that the court found the penalty violated the Eight Amendment’s protections against cruel and unusual punishment not because it was found to be cruel, but rather because it was so randomly applied that to receive the sentence was “as unusual as being struck by lightning.”
Over the next four years, states tinkered with their laws, trying to make them meet the constitutional standards set by the court. States limited the number of crimes eligible for the sentence. They implemented aggravating and mitigating factors. They sought to ensure that the sentence would be applied only to the “worst of the worst,” no longer be racially motivated, and guard against wrongful convictions. By 1976, several states had usable death penalty statutes, meaning we now have nearly 50 years’ worth of data on the implementation of the modern death penalty.
What the data shows is that the system operates in the exact same manner as it did prior to “reform.”Today, the death penalty is overrun with issues of innocence, arbitrariness in sentencing, racial bias, and waste. Let’s look at the factors.
One person has been exonerated from our death rows for every nine executions. In case you don’t know just how hard it is to be exonerated, it’s really hard. That number should shock everyone, but it actually comes nowhere close to painting the full picture of how many innocent people are sentenced to die, or who have been executed. On top of the number of official exonerees are hundreds of others who had their trials reversed, took Alford Pleas, or who won on appeal.
For any person who claims to care about the sanctity of human life, individual liberty, and certainly the faults of a big government, the innocence issues in the system alone should be enough to do away with this policy. But it gets worse.
When it comes to who gets the death penalty in this country, the heinousness of the crime actually has little to do with it. Instead, it comes down to three other factors: the location of the crime, the socioeconomic status of the defendant, and the race of the defendant and victim.
To date, only two percent of counties bring the vast majority of death penalty cases in this country, and all executions have stemmed from less than 16% of our counties. Most prosecutors recognize it is not a deterrent, it wastes an extraordinary amount of money, and it is an opportunity cost that contributes to fewer crimes being solved. Still, a small percentage use these cases to build their name recognition and climb the career ladder.
It is also telling to see against whom this small group of district attorneys seek death sentences. You won’t find wealthy people on our death rows. Rather, the people you encounter are usually impoverished, had to rely on overworked public defenders with impossible caseloads, and almost always have significant disabilities – severe mental illnesses, intellectual disabilities, and histories with horrific trauma.
And then there’s the explicit racial bias. While about half of all murder victims are black, in 2019 nearly 80% of all new death sentences and 73% of all executions were imposed for cases with white victims. This isn’t a departure from older trends. And the racial combination that is the most likely to result in a death sentence? When the defendant is black and the victim is white.
We value victims differently in this country, plain and simple. We decide that for some victims we will spend millions in excess to pursue the death penalty, whereas for others – 40% of homicide victims to be exact – we don’t even bother to solve their murders. If we want to circle back to the question of ethics, here would be the place.
Is the death penalty ethical? If we had a perfect system and could guarantee its use only for the “worst of the worst” and only when guilt was absolute, should we then condone it? Should that be what we strive for? I would still say no.
I believe all people have value that cannot be won or lost by anything they do or do not do, but rather that stems from all human beings being made in the image of God. I not only believe in the notion of second chances, I have seen the power of redemption. I’ve seen God powerfully work in the lives of those who have committed violence, and I would never want to intervene in what He could do in a person’s life.
It does not matter whether or not you agree with me on these grounds, though. Because it is without question that we are not in a perfect system, that our government has proven itself unable to create a system free of error and racial bias, and that the manner in which we carry out the death penalty is unethical. There’s no defending it.
So, let’s start there, where we should be able to all agree. A system that operates in such a manner must be shut down.
Hannah Cox (upper right) on a panel for the 2020 Rehumanize International conference
Hannah Cox is the Senior National Manager of Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty. Hannah was previously Director of Outreach for the Beacon Center of Tennessee, a free-market think tank. Prior to that, she was Director of Development for the Tennessee Firearms Association and a policy advocate for the National Alliance on Mental Illness.
=============================
For more of our posts on the death penalty, see:
Why Conservatives Should Oppose the Death Penalty / Destiny Herndon-de la Rosa
Racism and the Death Penalty / David Cruz-Uribe
For more of our posts on conservative views, see:
Nukes and the Pro-Life Christian: A Conservative Takes a Second Look at the Morality of Nuclear Weapons / Karen Swallow Prior
Making the Case for Peace to Conservatives / John Whitehead